Skip to main content

tv   This Week in Defense  CBS  December 23, 2012 8:00am-8:30am EST

8:00 am
welcome to "this week in defense news." i'm vago muradian. after more than a decade after war, marine snipers in afghanistan say they need better weapons and ammunition. we talk to one reporter who is embedded with marine sharp shooters in action. but first over a career spanning more than 60 years few have earned a more formidable reputation as an analytical thinker than harold brown who was the nation's 14th defense secretary during the carter administration. a true prodigy he earned hi doctorate in physics from columbia university when he was just 21. he started his career at livermore lab in california and eventually moving to the pentagon where he became the director of defense research and engineering then air force secretary and eventually defense secretary. his ability to handle a staggering workload are legend including read and annotating
8:01 am
400 page briefing books overnight. during the career brown shaped fighters like the f-15 and f-16 that remain the air force's backbone fleet today. and championed jointness among the military serv before the failed iran hostage rescue mission convinced others to follow. now 85, brown continues to serve on the defense policy board and is a trustee of the center for strategic and international studies. with joyce winds low, brown recently co-authored "star- spangled security" applying lessons safeguarding america. i asked him whether jointness was too far as some critics argue. >> not every operation requires jointness. i'm sure there are some that can be best handled by a single service. and by an element rather far down in the table of organization of that service. nevertheless, i believe that the idea of jointness, joint
8:02 am
operations, is correct because it brings together talents that each service has that the others do not have. it is probably true that too much is now happening at the unified and specified commands. they have indeed greatly increased staffs and they even have elements in washington that begin to act like lobbies. when a new problem arises, a joint task force is put together. and that makes sense. and the elements may come from more than one of the unified and specified commands. so i think another look is needed at not at the question of jointness, but at how it's carried out. and how the overhead is distributed. >> you worked in the pentagon during the vietnam war and there are those and you even mentioned certain parallels between the vietnam conflict and what we're seeing in afghanistan. right now there's a big debate
8:03 am
going on in washington whether or not troop levels should remain high to ensure that we can train the afghans fast enough to hand over control before we leave at the end of 2014. why is that a bad idea from your standpoint? >> the real question is what kind of country is going to -- will it be possible to leave behind? and the case of vietnam, my own conclusion back in period of 1967, '68, became that the government there was unsustainable because it really did not have a loyalty of the people. and that no matter what we tried to do. it would not have lasted for very long time after we left. afghanistan's i think somewhat different. it's not a matter of one piece of it geographically taking over the other piece.
8:04 am
et is a matter of a nation -- it is a matter of a nation that's never really been unified at all tightly. but since then it's become clear that it's not a nation in the ordinary sense. that it's so factionalized that no matter what we do, it's not going to be possible to create the kind of modern state that might become stable and satisfactory from our point of view. under those circumstances, i think the right question is what do we need to do to keep afghanistan from becoming endangered of the united states -- a danger to the united states? the way it is most likely to become a danger to the united states i think is through its influence on pakistan. which to me is the most dangerous place in the world. and i don't think that trying to stabilize the afghan situation by building up troop
8:05 am
levels there that can make it a really stable country is going to work. >> so what's a right approach then to make sure that pakistan doesn't become -- >> well, that's -- that's a very difficult problem. because the pakistanis don't trust us. and yet, we depend upon the pakistani government to keep control of its nuclear weapons. the right combination of satisfying pakistan and pushing pakistan to -- not to become a radical islamic state is going to be difficult. but i think that keeping afghanistan from destabilizing pakistan is a very important thing. >> you talked about a nuclear arms state. iran, the united states, and the world community has been pressuring iran to not go nuclear or not develop nuclear weapons. it appears that despite sanctions, there is an enormous
8:06 am
popular sentiment in iran to continue developing nuclear capabilities. and there are those who say that an attack on iran is an inevitably and is going tubenose and every year -- to be necessary and every year it's the year of the attack. is an attack on iran necessary or is there a way to deal with the nuclear armed iran as well as dealing with the proliferation of nuclear weapons more broadly over the coming decades? >> two things. first of all, i would not give up on trying to reach a deal with iran. i don't think that we can make a deal that keeps them from having a nuclear power program. a nuclear energy program. but i wouldn't give up on a deal that keeps them from having a nuclear weapon. that keeps them a certain distance away from having a nuclear weapon. say having some 5% enriched
8:07 am
uranium which would still require a substantial and effort taking significant time for them to get a nuclear weapon. now under those circumstances, there have to be enough inspection continued inspection, to provide assurance that that's all that they had. i don't know whether we can reach such an agreement. i don't know what we would have to give. i don't know what else they might have to give in order to reach it. but i think that's worth a real effort to try to achieve. failing that it is possible by an attack, an air attack, to set their program back by a couple of years. on the other hand, that would make relations even more poisonous if that's possible than they are now. and it would certainly rally the iranian population in favor of a nuclear program. a nuclear weapons program.
8:08 am
so although i don't rule out an attack i think we have to understand the limitations and downside of an attack. >> in the event that iran does get nuclear weapons and more broadly speaking, where there is a likelihood that if iran gets nuclear weapons than others may get nuclear weapons also. which is a big fear. although the u.s. could extend its nuclear umbrella to other nations and there so that obviates that need, but still isn't deterrent working through the cold war something that can also be applied to iran or a number of other nuclear regimes? >> the short answer is question. deterrents can work and of course it did work. it becomes harder many on many as compared with one-on-one. the u.s. and the soviet union became quite experienced in how to handle mutually assured destruction if you like.
8:09 am
or mutual deterrents. when you have a number of -- many nations butting up against each other physically essentially, and with much less experience in handling the issue of deterrents, i think the risks become higher. and if as you suggest proliferation is likely to become more widespread, if iran actually gets nuclear capability, i think the risks are very high. i'm rather pessimistic because it does seem to me that one way or another, a local nuclear war could break out and has a fairly high probability of breaking out. and when it happens, if it happens, the destruction will be very great. i'm a -- rather pessimistic about that. but i see a rather tarnished silver lining and because i
8:10 am
think if that happens, then the major powers will step in and actually try to undo proliferation. i'm not sure that would be a very happy world because i think that it would be strong pressures for the big five. the five permanent members of the u. n. security council, who happen to be the original five nuclear powers. would then get together and essentially squash everybody else. coming up, more with c. harold brown, you're watching -- dr. harold brown, you're watching "this week in defense news."
8:11 am
8:12 am
we're back and continuing our conversation with former defense secretary dr. harold brown. >> the administration, obama administration has made it a signature feature to reduce the size of the u.s. nuclear arsenal. up to 1,000 there's talk of 1,000 operational warheads. you know more about this than almost anybody else in -- in the united states. is that a good idea and are you going to a safer world with fewer nuclear weapons in it from the standpoint of the united states? >> yes. definitely yes. in fact, in 1977, when i first became secretary of defense, we prepared in the department of defense a plan for a nuclear arsenal of 1,000 nuclear weapons ready nuclear weapons. for us and the soviets.
8:13 am
and wanted to submit it to the strategic arms limitation talks but the soviets rejected it out of hand before it was made. so 1,000 would have been good then. it's good now. and maybe even we could go down below that. although there are now other countries with weapons in the hundreds aside from the u.s. and russia. and they would have to be included which is a complication. >> i want to take you to the question of strategy and strategy formulation. there are those who say that the united states has lost its ability to think and to act strategically if you look at for example our involvement in iraq, there are those who say that was strategically unwise and became something that was negative to the united states' broad interests. if you look at where we are now closing in on a fiscal cliff or fiscal crises of our own making that could then become obviously problematic for america's borrowing capabilities and economic
8:14 am
health more broadly. have we combated strategic thinking. if so why and what do we have to do to become better at strategic thinking. >> attention to the inbox is killing us because it takes away our opportunity to think in long-term -- and to do long- term thinking. and to think strategically. there's no part of the government that really does strategic thinking well now. i mean the state department has a policy planning organization. they don't really do it. defense department actually comes closer because it has the net assessment office that andy marshall has run now for almost 40 years. and it does try to think ahead and to look at things as a game and think about what others might do and what we might do and how those things interact.
8:15 am
but with some occasional exceptions, it has tended to concentrate on as it should, defense issues whereas strategy of course goes far beyond defense. that long-term strategy grand strategy includes domestic issues and it certainly includes economic issues. trade issues. you might even say it includes global warming. >> what do we have to do? for example when you look at national security. there's a lot more that goes into national security than just for example defense stuff where does it need to start? because there are folks who for example look at the nation's recent strategy as grand strategy and there are those that say it's not a grand strategy. >> every administration publishes what it calls a national strategy and i generally terns out to be a bunch of cliches. i don't have great optimism that the government can do this itself. i think that think tanks
8:16 am
actually tend to have more capability to do it. because they are on occasion able to get away from the inbox. unfortunately, the tendency is for the government to provide less and less funding for that kind of capability and the congress doesn't like to have airy fairy thinking funded by the government. and the state department, defense department, when they give money to the think tanks, it's for a very specific task generally. now, there is private money that goes into think tanks that could be available for this. but that i think is probably the best place to try to do it. it's not easy. universities sometimes think in these terms although recently in the last decades, they have
8:17 am
tended also to become narrowly focused on disciplinary rather than interdisciplinary activities. that's my best hope. i actually gave a speech a dozen years ago suggesting this. it hasn't happened. up next, why marine snipers need better ammo and rifles. stay tuned. they were coming. we knew it. there's only so much you can do to prepare for an all-out assault like that. we hunkered down, we braced ourselves... we just didn't have the numbers on the ground. what did we do? we used our navy federal cashrewards card to fly in reinforcements. nana. hoooaah! alright nana! 4 million members. 4 million stories. navy federal credit union.
8:18 am
8:19 am
8:20 am
one of the most important tools in iraq and afghanistan have been army and marine snipers who have become integral to virtually every operation. part scout, part guardian angel, part avenger, these sharp shooters are in such high demand the military is increasing numbers as quickly as possible. arch a dozen years of war, snipers are complaining their equipment is not good enough. dan lamothe recently returned from being im bedded with marine snipers in afghanistan. thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> you reported scout snipers are frustrated with their capabilities of ammunition. what's the problem? >> they took me out for a journalist a pretty unique mission. kind of an overnight sniper mission. and their gripe is they have several rifles to choose from, and that they're sort of capability gaps in between them. 50 caliber rifle, the m-107 reaches out to 2,000-meter,
8:21 am
2,000 yards but not nearly as accurate. and the m-40, the kind of the typical 762 caliber rifle they have, it is accurate, but they can really only reach someone and actually knock someone down up to about 800 they said. >> right. and not get a kill which is what they're looking for. >> right. >> so what were some of the solutions that are out there that can fielded to these guys to solve their problem? >> one of the observations that they made in a position paper that they pushed their own chain of command is that this precision sniper rifle that the army and the marine corps have been looking at for years would hopefully fill that gap. that project has remained very much in limbo, at least from the outside looking in. >> correct me if i'm wrong, but even though this is such an important tool, it is not a very expensive tool, isn't it? aren't we talking about something that for a few tens of millions of dollars for example would be solving some of these problems? >> yes. the marine corps purchase the
8:22 am
some m-110s, which is a semi automatic sniper rifle and that contract was somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 million a few years ago. >> so we're not talking about a lot of money. if anybody is listening out there, it might be a good priority to cover for the troops that are in the field. you covered and have been covering the massive transition that has been going on between american forces as they transition and hand over authority to the afghan security forces. and were you over there and went to areas for example that the afghan security forces had cleared, but in some of these areas, in hellman province that you mentioned, the taliban regained control of some of these areas. what happened? >> yes, it was very disheartening to hear. i spent time in the spring in two volatile areas of hellman province. and they were in pretty good shape when i was. there i was actually somewhat surprised that there wasn't more fire fights and things of that sort when i was there in april. between then and october when i visited again, the afghans were put in the lead, and for the
8:23 am
most part, where the security of those areas completely with the marines in more of an advising role. the combination of the taliban looking to push the afghans and the afghans leaving their posts and sort of abandoning ship, at least even if it is just for an overnight, you end up in situations where you have to reclear highways and end up in i.e.d.s in places that were safe. marines were quite frustrated. >> insider attacks is. there anything in the intermediate that is being done to improve the cape act of the afghan forces is, there follow on training to bolster their capabilities? >> one batallion commander told me, they're perfectly capable of handling this. at this point, they have more than enough fire power. they have the numbers. it is really more of a question of leadership. the marines, when they're there, and the soldiers and other parts of the country as well, they will guide them. but once you step back, they've
8:24 am
got to take the initiative and take care of business. >> insider attacks continue to be a hot button issue. what are the marine corps troops doing about that? >> the marine corps, they're taking hold, with the snipers, playing volleyball with the afghan shoulders that have a good relationship with the marines. despite that good relationship, they still felt obligated, based on their own orders to take one marine, to stand guard with a rifle, while we were playing sports. >> so that was your protection in the event somebody started shooting, that was the guy who would intervene. >> that is the one guy
8:25 am
8:26 am
the terms "hero" and "giant" are often overused but not when it comes to senator dan inno way who recently died at the age of 81. barred from the military until 143 because of his japanese heritage, his most famous action was against german machine gun nests. shot in the stomach he refused treatment and took out the second. weak from blood loss, he attacked the third but's prepared to throw another grenade, german fire nearly severed his rate arm. wresting the live grenade from his fist it he hurled it but was shot again in the leg. discrimination delayed his medal of honor until 2000. he was elected to congress in 1959 and the senate in 1963.
8:27 am
intelligent, honest, fair, he was deeply devoted to america's uniformed men and women shaping military legislation for decades. like the late senator ted stevens he put results ahead of ideology preferring thoughtful deal making to rhetoric. in a partisan and grid locked washington dan inouye is a model of leadership that puts service to the nation ahead of self. aloha, senator, you will be missed. thanks for joining us for "this week in defense news." i'm vago muradian wishing everybody a ve
8:28 am
8:29 am
the internet is turning into something really complicated, the human body. i'm steve usdin. welcome to "biocentury this week"." your trusted source for biotechnology, information and analysis. "biocentury this week." >> the defense advanced research project agency has two missions. to maintain the technological superiority of the u.s. military and prevent technological surprises from harming national security. the life science pros jects are rooted in military needs like meeting the threat of microbes or treating brain injury in the battlefield but they promise to transform civilian medicine. darpa specializes in high reward research. many of its projects sound like science fiction. when completed isu

96 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on